Dams and drinking water

Sir, - Prof. Indiresan in his article, ``Dams and drinking
water'' (TheHindu, Dec. 1), has implied that my statement ``A
mega-project can be replaced with a mix of mini alternatives'' in
the article on big dams (TheHindu, Sept. 20) is tantamount to an
assertion that ``a mega-project must be replaced with a mix of
mini-alternatives.'' In fact, the whole purpose of my article was
to suggest (as the title stressed) a fresh approach based on a
rational procedure such as least-cost planning.

The essence of this non-fundamental procedure is a ranking of all
the possible options on the basis of real (not merely financial)
costs. The cheapest option is taken as the first
element/component with a certain potential for contributing to
the desired infrastructural output goal. Then, the next more
expensive option with a further contribution to the desired
output goal. In this way, one identifies the least-cost solution
that will provide the required output. In the process, only the
real costs determine whether an option comes into the solution or
not.

Such a procedure can lead to several possible outcomes: (1) The
proposed mega project (e.g. big dam) itself proves to be the
least cost solution in which case it must be accepted
irrespective of prejudices against such projects. (2) Another
mega project turns out to be a better solution. (3) Since there
is no rule that the alternative to a mega project must be yet
another mega project, it can happen that a mix of mini-
alternatives plus a mega project or a mix of only mini-
alternatives meets the requirements. Thus, a mega project can be
replaced/supplemented by a mix of alternatives, which could
include both decentralised options and demand-side management
measures. What matters is whether the mix provides the same
services as the mega project. So, the chosen option or mix must
earn its place through the analysis. It must not be selected on
the basis of which breed/``caste'' of experts (engineers,
economists, social scientists, environmentalists, etc.) has
prepared the proposal. This is irrespective of what an expert
thinks about the superiority of his/her expertise or the
inferiority of other disciplines. No one should escape the
substantiation based on the transparent least-cost planning
analysis for the specific situation.

Even after this substantiation, the final approval must be based
on participatory decision-making in which the people have the
decisive say. Hence, the importance of transparency, the right to
information and the role of civil society.